The Legal Risks of Taking Generic Drugs Over Brand Names on The American Law Journal: Watch on TV this Sunday, May 5th at 5:30 p.m. and Online Now

Share Article

Consumers enjoy less legal protection if they take a generic drug instead of a brand name, but state courts are finding exceptions. Your move, U.S. Supreme Court.

"The Supreme Court got this wrong. When consumers rely on their doctors to write prescriptions that they think are the same or bioequivalent to the brand name drug, and now [they] have no recourse, it's just not fair" says Homolash

Online now and airing this Sunday at 5:30 p.m. (May 5) on the Philadelphia CNN-News affiliate WFMZ-TV, The American Law Journal presents "Are Generic Drug Manufacturers Getting a Free Pass?”

Joining host Christopher Naughton are plaintiff’s attorney Claudine Q. Homolash of Sheller, P.C., commercial litigator Terry M. Henry of Blank Rome LLP, Paul Langevin, M.D., of Philadelphia's Hahnemann University Hospital and Research Fellow and Lecturer for Seton Hall Law’s Center for Pharmaceutical Law & Policy Kate Greenwood. The panel looks at U.S. Supreme Court cases (Pliva v. Mensing, the recent Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett) and state court decisions which are increasingly favoring injured individuals (Alabama’s Wyeth v. Weeks).

The Legal Intelligencer’s senior staff writer Gina Passarella reports on generic drug litigation in an opening segment featuring plaintiff’s attorney Stewart J. Eisenberg of Eisenberg Rothweiler Winkler Eisenberg & Jeck PC and corporate defense counsel Alan Klein of Duane Morris LLP.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Pliva, generic drugs remain immune to lawsuit because they must mimic the label of the brand name and therefore cannot be liable for a failure to warn users of a drug’s dangers. “Since generic [manufacturers] don’t have the ability to change the label under the regulatory scheme,” says Henry, “they can’t be held liable for a bad label.”

“It reminds me of the game of Monopoly," says Homolash, "this is a get out of jail free card for generic manufacturers. They make up 85% of the market, yet they have no liability according to the Supreme Court.”

The American Law Journal can be viewed on the program's YouTube channel (search LawJournalTV) now as well as televised Sunday, May 5 at 5:30 p.m. on the Philadelphia CNN-News affiliate WFMZ-TV.

For WFMZ-TV cable and satellite systems channels, see http://bit.lyALJchannels. FiOS system subscribers tune to channel 15.

Next week on The American Law Journal: “Workers' Comp: Are Injured Workers Losing the Medical Battle?”

About The American Law Journal

The American Law Journal is the weekly talk-feature program hosted by former New Jersey prosecutor and trial attorney Christopher Naughton. It airs Monday nights at 7:00 p.m. and Sundays at 5:30 p.m. on the CNN-News affiliate in Philadelphia, WFMZ-TV to Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and online. On the air over twenty years, the program discusses consumer, business and Constitutional issues with attorneys, law professors, judges, elected officials and others to shed light on current legal news and how the system impacts the everyday lives of citizens.

Programs are live or taped in studio and on location in and around Philadelphia.

For information, schedules, archived programs and more, visit LawJournalTV.com.

Cases cited:
Pliva v. Mensing, U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 09-993
Bartlett v. Mutual Pharmaceuticals, U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 10-2277
Wyeth v. Weeks, Supreme Court of Alabama Case No. 1:10-cv-602

Share article on social media or email:

View article via:

Pdf Print

Contact Author

Dawn M. Donaldson, Associate Producer
Follow us on
Visit website